On condominium living, and the perils of unauthorised installations.

A and B live on the 15th floor. In December 2011, they noticed their 14th-floor neighbour installing fixed awnings between their respective units. They asked the MCST¹ if such awnings were allowed. The awnings posed various inconveniences to A and B, such as heat reflection, noise during rain, and the loss of views.

Eventually, at an AGM² in November 2012, a resolution was passed (a) allowing existing installations on external walls to remain for their lifespan; and (b) requiring residents to remove such installations before selling off their units. A and B decided to wait for the neighbours below to sell their unit, upon which the awnings would have to be removed.

In June 2018, the 14th floor unit was sold. But the awnings remained. It was only then that A and B found out that the purported resolution had never come into effect, as it had not been passed as a special resolution (requiring 75% approval), but was instead passed as an ordinary resolution.

At an AGM in November 2018, a resolution was passed with 86.6% approval, purportedly allowing the awnings to remain.

End of the road for A and B? Not quite.

It turned out that a 90% resolution was actually required, since the installations were permanent and allowed the 14th floor resident exclusive use of / special privileges over common property. The High Court eventually ordered the awnings to be removed, unless the necessary 90% resolutions could be obtained.

OBSERVATIONS:

(a) The matter dragged on, in various permutations, for almost 10 years. One wonders whether the MCST had, early on, obtained formal legal advice on whether the awnings were allowed, and if not, what needed to be done to come to a conclusion for once and for all. I know that Management Councils³ hate incurring legal costs, but an early piece of good advice may well have saved much time and costs.

(b) On costs, the MCST may well have incurred a mid-5 digit bill (or more) in failing to resist the order to have the awnings removed. Was this a good use of resources? What were the Management Council's considerations, in deciding to resist A and B's application? The Management Council may have to be prepared for questions from residents. Or perhaps it was the subsidiary proprietors who had voted in favour of litigation?

(c) This case is yet another reminder that external walls of a development form part of the common property, and residents make their own alterations (without obtaining the requisite resolutions) at their own peril. It is not always easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.⁴